Moderators Gerr Posted May 16, 2011 Moderators Posted May 16, 2011 Overage, What do you call Ellen's affirmation that Christ could have sinned...? ...And her further affirmations that had He sinned God would have annihilated Christ? ...If that's NOT a mutation capable Christ what would be in your mind? I'm not Overage, but I'll answer anyway. If there had been no POSSIBILITY that Christ could have sinned, then He was neither man nor human; His temptations would have been all a charade; and no sacrifice on His part whatsoever. Since God's Word says, "the soul that sinneth shall die," is it not logical that had the human Jesus would have died? Did not the human Jesus die anyway? Did He mutate when the Man Jesus died? Strawman!
Gustave Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 You are grasping at straws. She clearly says, "We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose
Moderators Gerr Posted May 16, 2011 Moderators Posted May 16, 2011 Whip me.... Hey, you're not into S & M, are you?
miz3 Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Gerry Cabalo, "Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?" Romans 6:16. "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." Romans 6:18. "When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness." Romans 6:20. "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Romans 6:22. "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin." Romans 7:14. A slave has no freedom of choice he must obey the master. Paul is talking about humans being slaves to sin and thus have no power to choose. "Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Philippians 2:6-8. Your version states Jesus Christ was "a slave".(the NLT is not a good tight translation but is a very biased loose translation). As such then Christ had no choice but to die on the cross and also could not have chosen to sin. Jesus was a slave to His Father. If Christ didn't die then God as promised per Genesis 3:15 would have lied to us. If Christ had free choice then God could not give such a promise because it was not a sure thing. A promise is always stated as a sure thing. That's why it is a promise. If Genesis 3:15 is a promise from God then it cannot be broken. Thus, Christ had to succeed.
ClubV12 Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Mrs. White says, "I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established,..." Wouldn't it be nice to have that kind of insight into the meaning of various bible verses? Well, we DO have that kind of insight to bible verses, all you have to do is accept it.
Gustave Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Mrs. White says,"I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established,..." Wouldn't it be nice to have that kind of insight into the meaning of various bible verses? Well, we DO have that kind of insight to bible verses, all you have to do is accept it. The Mormon's make the same claim about their "prophet"... ...What reasons do you offer as to why you reject Joseph Smith? ...And please don't say 'the Bible'!
teresaq Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 God does not have to vindicate anything to you, or any other human or any other created being. The arrogance of your humanity, CoAspen, is breath taking! Your assumption that the inferior would pass judgment on the superior is laughable. That is not how the Bible works. The Bible repeatedly states that it is God who will judge and have the final say. God does not have to justify anything to you. There is no Biblical support whatsoever that you, CoAspen, will ever sit in judgment of God. Your logic is flawed anyway because your premise is wrong! Originally Posted By: miz3 Of course you are free to disagree, that is your right. However, when you "pass judgment on God.....whether to obey or not..... If you are in doing that as a judge then you are elevating yourself above God, which is blasphemy and is NOT supported by the Bible. However, if you are obeying God as a humble servant because you TRUST Him, that is good. However, if you are disobeying God it is because of your arrogance and also because you DO NOT TRUST Him and this is bad. To elevate yourself to JUDGESHIP is only done by the arrogant and by the doubters. It is a demonstration of lack of Trust in God pure and simple. ... [/quote']And yet it is done all over the world by everyone who has ever lived. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant...each one of us humans passes judgment on God... Gerry Cabalo's post #443849 was pretty good as to God's condescension in explaining everything to us since He knows we are only dust and not able to see as He does. I like that kind of God. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Moderators Gerr Posted May 16, 2011 Moderators Posted May 16, 2011 This is simply Ellen's shot over the bow that she was INFALLABLE in matters of faith and morals... ...She claimed infallibility via the prophetic gift. ...Read that again Gerry. You are simply reading into what she said something that isn't there. Here are her own words: In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning.--Letter 10, 1895. Quote: Ellen White Bible truth is our only safety. I know and understand that we are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays. All these truths are immortalized in my writings. The Lord never denies His word. Men may get up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth, but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given her a message, will be safe from the many delusions that will come in in these last days. {8MR 320.2} Ellen White said that "she knows & understands" that SDA's are to be established in the faith... ...In the light of the truth that was given the SDA's in their early experience. ...THROUGH ELLEN WHITE. That is not what the passage is telling me. It clearly tells me that companies studied the Bible prayerfully, asking the Holy Spirit for guidance. THEN she would receive vision confirming what they had already arrived at to be the truth. With the cacophony of erroneous doctrines that "ministers and doctors" would bring up, it is no wonder to me that God would send prophetic confirmation to give further assurance that what they had arrived at was the truth! Had it been the other way around, as I already stated, that you would have a case. Otherwise, you are just nitpicking or grasping at straws. Quote: Ellen White flat-out states that COMPANIES of devoted men and women came together for the purpose of Bible study... ...AND the ONLY thing which insured the SDA's would not be in error."ALL WHO BELIEVE THAT THE LORD HAS SPOKEN THROUGH SISTER WHITE, AND HAS GIVEN HER A MESSAGE"... ..."WILL BE SAFE FROM THE MANY DESUSIONS THAT WILL COME IN THESE LAST DAYS". "AND the ONLY thing which insured the SDa's".... the ONLY THING? Again, like "mutation" and "rectum", those are only YOUR own invention. Grasping at straws. Nitpicking. Quote: ...Was the power of God coming into Ellen White. ...And SHE would define what was truth OR what was error. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays. Did she say it was HER that clearly defined truth from error? If prophets are given visions, or the ability to see things that ordinary people can't see, would it be a stretch of the imagination to believe that a prophet can therefore define truth & error more clearly? Paul clearly states that one of the gifts of the Spirit is the gift of prophecy. And Joel says it will be true to the last days. Why do you have a problem with God's precious gift? "Do not despise prophecies." "Believe in the LORD your God, and you will be established; believe his prophets, and you will succeed.”
ClubV12 Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 I used to be a Mormon, Joseph Smith can't hold a candle to Ellen White when it comes to the tests of a prophet. While some may conclude that EGW also fails the test, I would have to say "just barely", while believing she does NOT in any way fail in reality. Whereas with Joseph Smith, he fails the test "by a mile", the guy aint even in the ball park! It's not contest comparing those two! :)
teresaq Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Woody, I have no problem with questions to God or looking at His Books. The problem is when would be the Biblical time to this? According to SDA theology which they get from Ellen White is that there is an Investigative Judgment, (a massive process) that takes place before the Second Coming. Such a process started in 1844 and continues until Christ's Second Coming. (This is not an ordinary question time of God about this and that, that might peak our curiosity. It is about investigating God and His Government to see that no malfeasance has occurred). SDA further claim that such a Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment is held by them from the Bible and the Bible only. I disagree, because the Bible says nothing about such a huge process before the Second Coming regardless what name you want to call it. I have asked for Bible support to demonstrate that SDA are a Bible and Bible only Church and that this IJ Doctrine comes from the Bible. Gerry Cabalo is a nice guy and I enjoy our back and forth. I love his passion for what he believes but in this case he is wrong. I believe it would be more accurate for you to state that you reject this text as referring to an "investigative judgment", Dan 7:9 ¶ I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire. Dan 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. And you are free to do that, but we do believe that it refers to an investigative judgment before the second coming. :) facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Quote: Christ came to this earth to show the real image of God. He came also to save mankind by paying the price for sin, His law commanded that sinners must die. Satans lie was that we could accomplish all on our own. Christ came as God and man, something we can not comprehend or understand, was tempted as a man and relying on God the Father resisted. Was hung on the cross for our sins, vanquishing death and rose from the grave. End of story!! Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!!!! Works for me and no amount of picking over supposed details or philosophy of such changes my mind! Focusing on 'minors' derails the 'major'! Who truly wants to do that?? Well put together CoA. Good job man. Yes, I agree. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Moderators Gerr Posted May 16, 2011 Moderators Posted May 16, 2011 A slave has no freedom of choice he must obey the master. Paul is talking about humans being slaves to sin and thus have no power to choose. So according to you, since I was born sinful, I should still be a slave of Satan. HOW then did I CHOSE Christ as my Lord and Master? Miz3: "Your version states Jesus Christ was "a slave".(the NLT is not a good tight translation but is a very biased loose translation)." Greek dolous = 1401. δοῦλος doúlos; gen. doúlou, masc. noun. A slave, one who is in a permanent relation of servitude to another, his will being altogether consumed in the will of the other (Matt. 8:9; 20:27; 24:45, 46). Generally one serving, bound to serve, in bondage (Rom. 6:16, 17). (I) A slave, servant, spoken of involuntary service, e.g., a slave as opposed to a free man (eleútheros [1658]; 1 Cor. 7:21; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; Rev. 6:15). Also generally a servant (Matt. 13:27, 28; John 4:51; Acts 2:18; Eph. 6:5; 1 Tim. 6:1; Sept.: Lev. 25:44; Josh. 9:23; Judg. 6:27). In Phil. 2:7, having taken “the form of a servant,” means appearing in a humble and despised condition. Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
teresaq Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 #443364 I find plenty of places where the Bible says Christ came to vindicate humanity or "the world" because God loved us .... facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Gustave Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 You are simply reading into what she said something that isn't there. Here are her own words: In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning.--Letter 10, 1895.
Gustave Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 One of us is a bit confused here, or perhaps you didn't check back to see exactly what you wrote? TO AFFORD JUSTIFICATION FOR. We must be "IN CHRIST" to qualify for justification.... ...Christ Incarnated to SAVE the World. ...And the road map did not go through Christ vindicating God. ...As in God was a victim and everyone was laughing at God's law. Go back and check the definition of vindicated.... ...And there you will see the meanings.
teresaq Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Ellen White said 'Christ' COULD HAVE SINNED and HAD HE SINNED......The stone would NOT have been rolled away from His tomb! ...That is a MUTATION CAPABLE Christ Gerry. Originally Posted By: Mutation: a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change. an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure. the act or process of changing. a change or alteration, as in form or nature. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Wow, you know I see that Christ was willing to risk His entire eternal life and Godly existance to rescue this sinful world! The stakes were huge, the potential for disaster beyond comprehension. Wow... Yes, that is one way it could be viewed. "For God so loved the world that He gave..." Or it can be just dismissed as "heretical". facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Originally Posted By: ClubV12 Mrs. White says,"I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established,..." Wouldn't it be nice to have that kind of insight into the meaning of various bible verses? Well, we DO have that kind of insight to bible verses, all you have to do is accept it. The Mormon's make the same claim about their "prophet"... ...What reasons do you offer as to why you reject Joseph Smith? ...And please don't say 'the Bible'! Well, let's start a thread on mormonism point by point and see if it measures up to the bible. So far, you my brother gustave, are only showing that you disagree with our biblical understanding and muddying the waters with Ellen White, trinitarianism, etc. The truth is, SDAs believe certain scriptures to say one thing, but you are focused on other scriptures that, to you, say otherwise. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Gustave Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Yes, that is one way it could be viewed. "For God so loved the world that He gave..." Or it can be just dismissed as "heretical". When that text is mutated into the possibility of God ceasing to exist... ...It is heresy.
ClubV12 Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 I wouldn't call it heresy myself, because it's a sincere question, the wonder of it all. Just how far would God go to save mankind? Not a question for an answer, a loving thought about the mercy of God. Perhaps best left to myself...
Moderators Gerr Posted May 16, 2011 Moderators Posted May 16, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gerry You are simply reading into what she said something that isn't there. Here are her own words: In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning.--Letter 10, 1895. I'm simply reading what she said Gerry - she didn't need to claim it... ...She ONLY needed to say HER TESTIMONIES were. ...& she certainly did that. And her testimony is/was:In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning.--Letter 10, 1895. So whose testimony should/would I accept? The one interpreting her words or the one who said the words & knew what she meant? Had you been King Jehoichin or Zedekiah, and the prophet Jeremiah came to you and said, "submit to the Babylonians or you will go into captivity," what would you have thought of the message?
miz3 Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 Greek dolous = 1401. δοῦλος doúlos; gen. doúlou, masc. noun. A slave, one who is in a permanent relation of servitude to another, his will being altogether consumed in the will of the other (Matt. 8:9; 20:27; 24:45, 46). Generally one serving, bound to serve, in bondage (Rom. 6:16, 17).(I) A slave, servant, spoken of involuntary service, e.g., a slave as opposed to a free man (eleútheros [1658]; 1 Cor. 7:21; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11; Rev. 6:15). Also generally a servant (Matt. 13:27, 28; John 4:51; Acts 2:18; Eph. 6:5; 1 Tim. 6:1; Sept.: Lev. 25:44; Josh. 9:23; Judg. 6:27). In Phil. 2:7, having taken “the form of a servant,” means appearing in a humble and despised condition. Thank you, I already know what the Greek is! I was merely stating that the version was a loose translation in general. I should have been clearer about that. I have no quarrel with the word slave because it actually makes my point stronger. In other versions it uses the word "servant" but the Greek is quit emphatic in regard to "dolous". It is actually more accurate to translate it as "slave". Like a said a slave must do what the master wants. As Paul points in the texts I gave you humans are either, dolous to the sinful nature or they are dolous to Christ (Righteousness, Holy Spirit, etc). As such they must do what that master commands. The way humans connect with Christ is by the initiative action of the Holy Spirit (God, the Light, Christ, etc) who barges into the human's life and starts the process of change. If Christ did not initiate the human would never even think to respond at all. It is the conflict that occurs because of God's initiative work that makes the human respond. As John chapter one states that if Jesus Christ had not been the Light humans would have been in perpetual darkness and thus perpetual slaves to the sinful nature. It is God's initiative to send the Light. Humans would not even know the Light exist without God's initiative action. That is just Biblical Fact! What responses are open to the human? Only one REJECT GOD AND HIS WORK! He can't chose God because God is already there. He can't choose the sinful nature because it is already there. The sinful nature will not respond to the human's REJECTION, however God has stipulated that He will eventually give up the contest if the human REJECTS CONSTANTLY HIS EFFORTS. The human is reduced only to REJECTION of God. In the case of Jesus Christ and His humanity, Paul is quite clear that He is the Second Adam. As such Christ would have had to have a "sinless nature". Jesus Christ did not experience the slavery that comes with the sinful nature. Jesus Christ did not have to overcome inbred passions like you and I. Jesus Christ for example did not have to overcome a sinful nature that enslaved him to "lust the little girl down the lane". Jesus was not enslaved to the sinful nature to eyeball pornography or to act sinful with such visual exhibitions. Jesus was not enslaved to the sinful nature so that He did not "honor His father and mother". Jesus Christ was not enslaved so that He would "covet His neighbors wife, manservant, ox, horse, donkey, etc. Jesus did not have a sinful nature that enslaved Him to take God's name in vain, or to not keep the Sabbath, or to bow down to idols, or not keep the Sabbath. Jesus was not enslaved to the sinful nature in any way shape or form.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 16, 2011 Moderators Posted May 16, 2011 And the guidance came via God speaking through Ellen White... ...Therefore once Ellen DEFINED what was truth the ONLY accepted meaning of the text. ...Was exactly what Ellen said God told her it was. Again it seems to me that you are reading something into it more than what may have been intended. Just because EGW gave an interpretation on some text that therefore there are no other possibilities is ridiculous. God's words are far richer in meaning than we think. The only thing that I would rule out is that, if God was speaking through EGW (which I believe to be true), another interpretation of the same text that CONTRADICTS what God revealed already to be true cannot be true! So any other interpretation that does not contradict God-revealed truth is fair game. Quote: Originally Posted By: Gerry AND the ONLY thing which insured the SDa's".... the ONLY THING? Again, like "mutation" and "rectum", those are only YOUR own invention. Grasping at straws. Nitpicking Do you believe that Christ HAS existed ETERNALLY with God the Father??? ...As in "God The Son" & "God The Holy Spirit"? ...Ellen introduces her teaching that THAT VERY GOD could have sinned and forever ceased to EXIST. ...Then you claim it's my invention that Ellen taught a mutation capable "Christ"! Christ as God existed throughout eternity. The Man Jesus HAD a beginning. Did Christ mutate when He became a man? Did Christ mutate when the Man Jesus died? Had the Man Jesus chosen to sin, the Man Jesus would have remained in the grave. Quote: The SDA Pioneers that were the contemporaries of Ellen White, TO THE MAN.... ...All claimed that the term "PERSONALITY OF GOD" meant that God the Father had a BODY of FLESH. ...And that God the Father had "ALL" the parts and members of a perfect MAN. ...THEN you again state it's all my invention? ...This will ultimately be easier for me than it was at the Amazing Discoveries Forum! I don't care what Joe Bates or Jim White or any of the early pioneers originally believed. Truth is progressive. After many Bible conferences during which time they individually & corporately studied the Scriptures, they changed their view on many things. They moved from the Arian to the Trinitarian view. From Sunday to Sabbath. From eternally burning in hell for the wicked to total annihilation. From eating pork to avoiding unclean meat. Etc. Yes, just your invention! Or nitpicking!
Moderators Gerr Posted May 16, 2011 Moderators Posted May 16, 2011 I was merely stating that the version was a loose translation in general. I should have been clearer about that. [color:#3333FFThat's why I cited 2 versions - one literal, the other more a paraphrase.color] miz3: Like a said a slave must do what the master wants. As Paul points in the texts I gave you humans are either, dolous to the sinful nature or they are dolous to Christ (Righteousness, Holy Spirit, etc). As such they must do what that master commands.[color:blue] Gerry was born sinful - a child of wrath per Ephesians, therefore, a slave of Satan. How did Gerry or miz3 change from a slave of Satan to slave of God? miz3: What responses are open to the human? Only one REJECT GOD AND HIS WORK! Well, how many choices do you want in order to be free to choose? There are only two opposing sides to choose from. There can't be a middle ground because we are not self-sustaining. miz3: The human is reduced only to REJECTION of God. Wrong! The choices are: 1) Reject God and remain where you are, 2) Accept what Christ for you and get out of the predicament you're in! miz3: In the case of Jesus Christ and His humanity, Paul is quite clear that He is the Second Adam. As such Christ would have had to have a "sinless nature". Jesus Christ did not experience the slavery that comes with the sinful nature. Jesus Christ did not have to overcome inbred passions like you and I. Jesus Christ for example did not have to overcome a sinful nature that enslaved him to "lust the little girl down the lane". Jesus was not enslaved to the sinful nature eyeball pornography or to act sinful with such visual exhibitions. Jesus was not enslaved to the sinful nature so that He did not "honor His father and mother". Jesus Christ was not enslaved so that He would "covet His neighbors wife, manservant, ox, horse, donkey, etc. Jesus did not have a sinful nature that enslaved Him to take God's name in vain, or to not keep the Sabbath, or to bow down to idols, or not keep the Sabbath. Jesus was not enslaved to the sinful nature in any way shape or form. Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh", but did not have a body that was indwelt by sin! I thought we had this as a point of agreement in another thread. His moral nature was sinless, but He had a body that became hungry, thirsty, craved sympathy, etc. just like us. His temptation did not come from within. But no matter whether our temptation comes from within or without, it boils down to the same choices as Adam & Eve - do I obey God or give in to the temptation from without or within. Same choices.
miz3 Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh", but did not have a body that was indwelt by sin! I thought we had this as a point of agreement in another thread. His moral nature was sinless, but He had a body that became hungry, thirsty, craved sympathy, etc. just like us. His temptation did not come from within. But no matter whether our temptation comes from within or without, it boils down to the same choices as Adam & Eve - do I obey God or give in to the temptation from without or within. Same choices. My bad, I stand corrected. I forgot about that. I apologize. Then we have say we disagree about "choice". I can live with our disagreeing over this. We can still be brethren in Christ and have this as a point of disagreement.
Recommended Posts